is that ethical? that doesn't sound so ethical.

[electricland]

via gristmill_rss:

A study of pesticide and chemical exposures in children being conducted by government researchers is raising some disturbing -- and by that we mean "outright creepy" -- questions. For one thing, $2 million in funding will come from the American Chemistry Council, an industry group with, one might imagine, a vested interest in the results. While the ACC and the U.S. EPA both claim that the source of funding will have no effect on the study, enviros are skeptical of the whole deal. Also troublesome is the fact that children who participate in the two-year study must live in homes likely to be heavily polluted with pesticides (Hispanic migratory farm workers, perhaps?) and their parents must agree to have the home periodically sprayed with pesticides, for which they receive the princely sum of up to $970. So, what are they calling this exercise wherein the chemical industry pays to have poor kids up to three years of age exposed to chemicals and studied? The Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study, or CHEERS.
--Chemical and Engineering News

Yikes.

ETA: to be fair... participants are not required to change any of their regular routines. I still don't see anything about IRB approval, though.

No sign of Herself yet. Looks like their plane got in over an hour late, so I'm not too surprised.

Comments

[elissa-carey.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't seem ethical at all. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be illegal, unless somehow someone can manage to make it sound like child labor (which there are laws against) or a violation of EPA standards. They probably have the parents sign a waiver, saying that if the kids get sick that they will not sue and say that it was the fault of the pesticides they voluntarily had sprayed in their homes.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I just looked up the requirements for institutional review board approval of this type of research. It still sounds dodgy to me. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/children/

[electricland.livejournal.com]

not to mention:

The HHS human subject protection regulations (45 CFR part 46) require that institutions
performing HHS conducted or supported non-exempt research involving human subjects have
the research reviewed and approved by an IRB whose goal is to help ensure that the rights and
welfare of human subjects are protected. The comparable FDA regulations (21 CFR parts 50
and 56) require that FDA regulated research involving human subjects is reviewed and approved
by such an IRB. Under these regulations, IRBs are responsible for, among other things,
determining that:

• Risks to subjects are minimized (45 CFR 46.111(a)(1), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(1));


• Risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, if any, to subjects (45
  CFR 46.111(a)(2), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(2));


• Selection of subjects is equitable (45 CFR 46.111(a)(3), 21 CFR 56.111(a)(3));


• Informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject (45 CFR 46.111(a)(4), 21
  CFR 56.111(a)(4)); and,


• The possibility of coercion or undue influence is minimized (45 CFR 46.116, 21 CFR
  50.20).

In addition the IRB may

• Require that additional information be given to subjects “when in the IRB's judgment the
  information would meaningfully add to protection of the rights and welfare of subjects”(45 CFR 46.109(b), 21 CFR 56.109(b)).

(from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/finreltn/fguid.pdf)

Hmm, I say.